The Dimon Dog has been eating crow for the past few days, following a very public humiliation. The outspoken critic of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act found himself explaining a $2 billion loss sustained by his firm, JPMorgan Chase, as a result of involvement in the very type of activity the Act’s “Volcker Rule” was intended to prevent. Financial industry lobbyists have been busy, frustrating regulatory attempts to implement Dodd-Frank’s provisions which call for stricter regulation of securities trading and transactions involving derivatives. Appropriately enough, it was an irresponsible derivatives trading strategy which put Jamie Dimon on the hot seat. The widespread criticism resulting from this episode was best described by Lizzie O’Leary (@lizzieohreally) with a single-word tweet: Dimonfreude.

The incident in question involved a risky bet made by a London-based trader named Bruno Iksil – nicknamed “The London Whale” – who works in JP Morgan’s Chief Investment Office, or CIO. An easy-to-understand explanation of this trade was provided by Heidi Moore, who emphasized that Iksil’s risky position was no secret before it went south:

Everyone knew. Thousands of people. Iksil’s bets have been well known ever since Bloomberg’s Stephanie Ruhle broke the news in early April. A trader at rival bank, Bank of America Merrill Lynch wrote to clients back then, saying that Iksil’s huge bet was attracting attention and hedge funds believed him to be too optimistic and were betting against him, waiting for Iksil to crash. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Merrill Lynch trader wrote, “Fast money has smelt blood.”

When the media, analysts and other traders raised concerns on JP Morgan’s earnings conference call last month, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon dismissed their worries as “a tempest in a teapot.”

Dimon’s smug attitude about the trade (prior to its demise) was consistent with the hubris he exhibited while maligning Dodd-Frank, thus explaining why so many commentators took delight in Dimon’s embarrassment. On May 11, Kevin Roose of DealBook offered a preliminary round-up of the criticism resulting from this episode:

In a research note, a RBC analyst, Gerard Cassidy, called the incident a “hit to credibility” at the bank, while the Huffington Post’s Mark Gongloff said, “Funny thing: Some of the constraints of the very Dodd-Frank financial reform act Dimon hates could have prevented it.” Slate’s Matthew Yglesias pointed back to statements Mr. Dimon made in opposition to the Volcker Rule and other proposed regulations, and quipped, “Indeed, if only JPMorgan were allowed to run a thinner capital buffer and riskier trades. Then we’d all feel safe.”

At issue is corporate governance at JPMorgan and the ability of its CEO, Jamie Dimon, to manage its risk. It’s reasonable to ask whether any CEO can manage the risks of a bank this size, but the questions surrounding Jamie Dimon’s management are more targeted than that. The problem Jamie Dimon has is that JPMorgan lost control in multiple areas. Each time a new problem becomes public, it is revealed that management controls weren’t adequate in the first place.

* * *

Jamie Dimon’s problem as Chairman and CEO–his dual role raises further questions about JPMorgan’s corporate governance—is that just two years ago derivatives trades were out of control in his commodities division. JPMorgan’s short coal position was over sized relative to the global coal market. JPMorgan put this position on while the U.S. is at war. It was not a customer trade; the purpose was to make money for JPMorgan. Although coal isn’t a strategic commodity, one should question why the bank was so reckless.

After trading hours on Thursday of this week, Jamie Dimon held a conference call about $2 billion in mark-to-market losses in credit derivatives (so far) generated by the Chief Investment Office, the bank’s “investment” book. He admitted:

During the party, Mr. Dimon took questions from the crowd, according to an attendee who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the bank. One guest asked about the problem of too-big-to-fail banks and the arguments made by Mr. Volcker and Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Dimon responded that he had just two words to describe them: “infantile” and “nonfactual.” He went on to lambaste Mr. Fisher further, according to the attendee. Some in the room were taken aback by the comments.

* * *

The hypocrisy is that our nation’s big financial institutions, protected by implied taxpayer guarantees, oppose regulation on the grounds that it would increase their costs and reduce their profit. Such rules are unfair, they contend. But in discussing fairness, they never talk about how fair it is to require taxpayers to bail out reckless institutions when their trades imperil them. That’s a question for another day.

AND the fact that large institutions arguing against transparency in derivatives trading won’t acknowledge that such rules could also save them from themselves is quite the paradox.

Dimon’s rant at the Dallas party was triggered by a fantastic document released by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas on March 21: its 2011 Annual Report, featuring an essay entitled, “Choosing the Road to Prosperity – Why We Must End Too Big to Fail – Now”. The essay was written by Harvey Rosenblum, the head of the Dallas Fed’s Research Department and the former president of the National Association for Business Economics. Rosenblum’s essay provided an historical analysis of the events leading up to the 2008 financial crisis and the regulatory efforts which resulted from that catastrophe – particularly the Dodd-Frank Act.

And now – only a few years after the banking crisis that forced American taxpayers to bail out the Street, caused home values to plunge by more than 30 percent, pushed millions of homeowners underwater, threatened or diminished the savings of millions more, and sent the entire American economy hurtling into the worst downturn since the Great Depression – J.P. Morgan Chase recapitulates the whole debacle with the same kind of errors, sloppiness, bad judgment, and poorly-executed and excessively risky trades that caused the crisis in the first place.

In light of all this, Jamie Dimon’s promise that J.P. Morgan will “fix it and move on” is not reassuring.

The losses here had been mounting for at least six weeks, according to Morgan. Where was the new transparency that’s supposed to allow regulators to catch these things before they get out of hand?

* * *

But let’s also stop hoping Wall Street will mend itself. What just happened at J.P. Morgan – along with its leader’s cavalier dismissal followed by lame reassurance – reveals how fragile and opaque the banking system continues to be, why Glass-Steagall must be resurrected, and why the Dallas Fed’s recent recommendation that Wall Street’s giant banks be broken up should be heeded.

At Salon, Andrew Leonard focused on the embarrassment this episode could bring to Mitt Romney:

Congressman Ron Paul is one of the few original thinkers on Capitol Hill. Sometimes he has great ideas, although at other times he might sound a little daft. He recently grabbed some headlines by expressing the view that the United States “should declare bankruptcy”. A June 28 CNN report focused on Paul’s agreement with the contention that if bankruptcy is the cure for Greece, it is also the cure for the United States. However, as most economists will point out, the situation in Greece is not at all relevant to our situation because the United States issues its own currency and Greece is stuck with the euro, under the regime of the European Central Bank. Anyone who can’t grasp that concept should read this posting by Cullen Roche at the Seeking Alpha website.

Nevertheless, economist Dean Baker picked up on one of Congressman Paul’s points, which – if followed through to its logical conclusion – could actually solve the debt ceiling impasse. The remark by Ron Paul which inspired Dean Baker was a gripe about the $1.6 trillion in Treasury securities that the Federal Reserve now holds as a result of two quantitative easing programs:

“We owe, like, $1.6 trillion because the Federal Reserve bought that debt, so we have to work hard to pay the interest to the Federal Reserve,” Paul said. “We don’t, I mean, they’re nobody; why do we have to pay them off?”

In an article for The New Republic, Dr. Baker commended Dr. Paul for his creativity and agreed that having the Federal Reserve Board destroy the $1.6 trillion in government bonds it now holds as a result of quantitative easing “is actually a very reasonable way to deal with the crisis”. Baker provided this explanation:

Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion to the Treasury. In this sense, the bonds held by the Fed are literally money that the government owes to itself.

Unlike the debt held by Social Security, the debt held by the Fed is not tied to any specific obligations. The bonds held by the Fed are assets of the Fed. It has no obligations that it must use these assets to meet. There is no one who loses their retirement income if the Fed doesn’t have its bonds. In fact, there is no direct loss of income to anyone associated with the Fed’s destruction of its bonds. This means that if Congress told the Fed to burn the bonds, it would in effect just be destroying a liability that the government had to itself, but it would still reduce the debt subject to the debt ceiling by $1.6 trillion. This would buy the country considerable breathing room before the debt ceiling had to be raised again. President Obama and the Republican congressional leadership could have close to two years to talk about potential spending cuts or tax increases. Maybe they could even talk a little about jobs.

Unfortunately, the next passage of Dr. Baker’s essay exposed the reason why this simple, logical solution would never become implemented:

As it stands now, the Fed plans to sell off its bond holdings over the next few years. This means that the interest paid on these bonds would go to banks, corporations, pension funds, and individual investors who purchase them from the Fed.

And therein lies the rub: The infamous “too-big-to-fail” banks could buy those bonds with money borrowed from the Fed at a fractional interest rate, and then collect the yield on those bonds – entirely at the expense of American taxpayers! Not only would the American people lose money by loaning the bond purchase money to the banks almost free of charge – we would lose even more money by paying those banks interest on the money we just loaned to those same banks – nearly free of charge. (This is nothing new. It’s been ongoing since the inception of “zero interest rate policy” or ZIRP on December 16, 2008.) President Obama would never allow his patrons on Wall Street to have such an opportunity “stolen” from them by the American taxpayers. Banking industry lobbyists would start swarming all over Capitol Hill carrying briefcases filled with money if any serious effort to undertake such a plan reached the discussion stage. At this point, you might suspect that the grifters on the Hill could have a scheme underway: Make a few noises about following Baker’s suggestion and wait for the lobbyists to start sharing the love.

In the mean time, the rest of us will be left to suffer the consequences of our government’s failure to raise the debt ceiling.

Those of us who found it necessary to explain quantitative easing during the course of a blog posting, have struggled with creating our own definitions of the term. On October 18, 2010, I started using this one:

Quantitative easing involves the Federal Reserve’s purchase of Treasury securities as well as mortgage-backed securities from those privileged, too-big-to-fail banks.

What I failed to include in that description was the fact that the Fed was printing money to make those purchases. I eventually resorted to simply linking the term to the definition of quantitative easing at Wikipedia.org.

Suddenly, in November of 2010, a cartoon – posted on YouTube – became an overnight sensation. It was a 6-minute discussion between two little bears, which explained how “The Ben Bernank” was trying to fix a broken economy by breaking it more.

We eventually learned a few things about the cartoon’s creator, Omid Malekan, who produced the clip for free on the xtranormal.com website. Kevin Depew, the Editor-in-Chief of Minyanville, interviewed Malekan within days of the cartoon’s debut. Malekan expressed his disgust with what he described as “the Washington-Wall Street Complex” and the revolving door between the financial industry and those agencies tasked to regulate it. David Weigel of Slateinterviewed Malekan on November 22, 2010 (eleven days after the cartoon was made). At that point, we learned a bit about the political views of the 30-year-old, former stock trader-turned-real estate manager:

I’m all over the map. Socially, I’m pretty liberal. Economically, I’m fairly free-market oriented. I generally prefer to vote third party, because it’s just good for the country if we get another voice in there. To me none of this is really partisan because things are the same under both parties. Ben Bernanke was appointed by Bush and re-appointed by Obama, so they both have basically the same policies. The problem, really, is that monetary policy is now removed from people in general. People like Bernanke don’t have to get elected. There’s a disconnect between them and the people their decisions are affecting.

One month later, Malekan was interviewed by “Evan” of The Point Blog at the Sam Adams Alliance. On this occasion, the animator explained his decision to put “the” in front of so many proper names, as well as his reference to Ben Bernanke as “The Bernank”. Malekan had this to say about the popularity of the cartoon:

To be fully honest, I had no idea this would get the wide audience that it did. Initially when I made it, it was to explain it to a select group of friends of mine. And any other straggler that happened to see it, and I never thought that would be over 3 million people. But, the main reason was cause I think monetary policy is important to everybody because it’s monetary policy. Unlike fiscal policy or regulation, monetary policy, because of the way it impacts interest rates and the dollar, impacts every single person that buys and sells and earns dollars. So I think it’s something that everybody should be paying attention to, but most people don’t because it’s not ever presented to them in a way they could hope to understand it.

Omid Malekan produced another helpful cartoon on January 28. The new six-minute clip, “Bank Bailouts Explained” provides the viewer with an understanding of what many of us know as Maiden Lane III – as well as how the other “backdoor bailouts” work, including the true cost of Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) to the taxpayers. This cartoon is important because it can disabuse people of the propaganda based on the claim that the Wall Street megabanks – particularly Goldman Sachs – owe the American taxpayers nothing because they repaid the TARP bailouts. I discussed this obfuscation back on November 26, 2009:

For whatever reason, a number of commentators have chosen to help defend Goldman Sachs against what they consider to be unfair criticism. A recent example came to us from James Stewart of The New Yorker. Stewart had previously written a 25-page essay for that magazine, entitled “Eight Days” — a dramatic chronology of the financial crisis as it unfolded during September of 2008. Last week, Stewart seized upon the release of the recent SIGTARP report to defend Goldman with a blog posting which characterized the report as supportive of the argument that Goldman owes the taxpayers nothing as a result of the government bailouts resulting from that near-meltdown. (In case you don’t know, a former Assistant U.S. District Attorney from New York named Neil Barofsky was nominated by President Bush as the Special Investigator General of the TARP program. The acronym for that job title is SIGTARP.) In his blog posting, James Stewart began by characterizing Goldman’s detractors as “conspiracy theorists”. That was a pretty weak start. Stewart went on to imply that the SIGTARP report refuted the claims by critics that, despite Goldman’s repayment of the TARP bailout, it did not repay the government the billions it received as a counterparty to AIG’s collateralized debt obligations. Stewart referred to language in the SIGTARP report to support the spin that because “Goldman was fully hedged on its exposure both to a failure by A.I.G. and to the deterioration of value in its collateralized debt obligations” and that “(i)t repaid its TARP loans with interest, bought back the government’s warrants at a nice profit to the Treasury” Goldman therefore owes the government nothing — other than “a special debt of gratitude”. One important passage from page 22 of the SIGTARP report that Stewart conveniently ignored, concerned the money received by Goldman Sachs as an AIG counterparty by way of Maiden Lane III, at which point those credit default obligations (of questionable value) were purchased at an excessive price by the government. Here’s that passage from the SIGTARP report:

When FRBNY authorized the creation of Maiden Lane III in November 2008, it lent approximately $24.6 billion to the newly formed limited liability company, and AIG provided Maiden Lane III approximately $5 billion in equity. These funds were used to purchase CDOs from AIG counterparties worth an estimated fair value of $29.6 billion at the time of the purchases, which were done in three stages on November 25, 2008, December 18, 2008, and December 22, 2008. AIGFP’s counterparties were paid $27.1 billion, and AIGFP was paid $2.5 billion per an agreement between AIGFP and FRBNY. The $2.5 billion represented the amount of collateral that AIGFP had previously paid to the counterparties that was in excess of the actual decline in the fair value as of October 31, 2008.

FRBNY’s loan to Maiden Lane III is secured by the CDOs as the underlying assets. After the loan has been repaid in full plus interest, and, to the extent that there are sufficient remaining cash proceeds, AIG will be entitled to repayment of the $5 billion that the company contributed in equity, plus accrued interest. After repayment in full of the loan and the equity contribution (each including accrued interest), any remaining proceeds will be split 67 percent to FRBNY and 33 percent to AIG.

The end result was a $12.9 billion gift to “The Goldman Sachs”.

Thanks to Mr. Malekan, we now have a cartoon that explains how all of AIG’s counterparties were bailed out at taxpayer expense, along with an informative discourse about the other “backdoor bailouts”.

Omid Malekan has his own website here. You should make a point of regularly checking in on it, so you can catch his next cartoon before someone takes the opportunity to spoil all of the jokes for you. Enjoy!

The human race insists on being naïve. The need to believe in some form of Santa Claus continues long after the age of 6. Is it just plain-old stupidity – or is it simply the uncritical acceptance of bogus narratives and public relations spin that keeps modern society’s consensual head buried in the sand?

Things haven’t changed that much since 1959. In that year, the highly-flamboyant, obviously gay pianist known as Liberace, filed a libel suit against the London-based Daily Mirror newspaper and its columnist, William Connor (who used the pseudonym, Cassandra) for implying that Liberace was a homosexual. Because the truth of the contested assertion is a legal defense, Liberace’s case would appear to be a classic example of what is often referred to as a “frivolous lawsuit”. Roy Greenslade of the Guardianprovided this account of the trial:

Connor wrote that Liberace was “… the summit of sex – the pinnacle of masculine, feminine, and neuter. Everything that he, she, and it can ever want … a deadly, winking, sniggering, snuggling, chromium-plated, scent-impregnated, luminous, quivering, giggling, fruit-flavoured, mincing, ice-covered heap of mother love.”

* * *

After a six-day hearing, during which Liberace denied being homosexual or ever having taken part in homosexual acts, the jury found for him. He was awarded a then-record £8,000 in damages (about £500,000 in today’s money).

Just as an American jury was similarly inclined to ignore the evidence and acquit O. J. Simpson of murder charges three and one-half decades later, Liberace’s lawsuit demonstrated how the bright light of celebrity could out-shine the truth. From the Liberace trial to the O.J. trial — to the present day — it is almost impossible to “de-program” people who have been brainwashed by effective public relations and other forms of propaganda.

More recently, this past weekend brought us some examples of how painful it is for the public to accept the fact that our government is run by a bunch of hustlers. The simple truth is that our nation’s Capitol Building is the world’s largest whorehouse – inhabited by a vast number of people who will do anything for money. If those grafters can’t be prosecuted, the American taxpayers must insist that red lights and pink velvet curtains should be placed in all of the windows of the Capitol Building.

Numerous times this year, members of Congress have held fundraisers and collected big checks while they are taking critical steps to write new laws, despite warnings that such actions could create ethics problems. The campaign donations often came from contributors with major stakes riding on the lawmakers’ actions.

Leonnig and Farnam provided us with this fine example:

Earlier this month, the chairman of the Senate committee overseeing tax policy, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), gave himself a birthday-party fundraiser – on the same day that the chamber took its first vote on an $858 billion tax package that would provide breaks to wealthy citizens and business interests.

When the office of Senator Baucus was contacted by the Post reporters for comment, the response seemed tailor-made for a credulous public, comprised entirely of jurors from the Liberace and O. J. Simpson trials:

“Money has no influence on how Senator Baucus makes his decisions,” Baucus spokeswoman Kate Downen said. “The only factor that determines Senator Baucus’s votes is whether a policy is right for Montana and right for our country.”

. . . and Santa’s sleigh returned safely to the North Pole without interference from terrorists.

At the Decline of the Empire blog, Dave Cohen had some fun discussing the reactions of a few commentators who expressed shock and disappointment upon hearing that President Obama’s budget director, Peter Orszag, left that position to take a job with Citigroup:

Orszag’s move poses an existential crisis for these people. They want to believe in the political system, and they take it very seriously indeed. They spend a substantial part of their lives commenting on America’s political life. They make their living doing so. They are heavily vested in the primacy and righteousness of American politics. But then this Orszag guy turns around and joins Citigroup, making a mockery of everything they want to believe. Ultimately, Orszag mocked the very way they define themselves in the world. No wonder they are upset.

An “existential crisis” en masse could become the catalyst for awakening people to the realization that our political leaders and their bureaucratic minions are not as scrupulous as one might prefer to believe. The next financial crisis could provoke the requisite existential crisis which would motivate taxpayers to take action toward changing Washington’s culture of corruption. Such an event could result in the creation of an offshore tax escrow account where taxpayers would pay their taxes, to be withheld from the Internal Revenue Service (outside the jurisdiction of American courts) until our current officials simply pack up and leave. Since those politicians don’t do anything anyway, their absence won’t be noticed. Emergency elections could then be held to replace those vacancies. Perhaps you might have a better solution . . .

I was going to hold off on this and give President Obama the benefit of a doubt – at least for a few months. Nevertheless, after reading the magnificent piece by Barry Ritholtz, entitled: “The Tragedy of the Obama Administration”, I decided that it was time to start discussing leadership alternatives for the next Presidential term.

On October 30, the Associated Press published the results of a poll it conducted with Knowledge Networks. Forty-seven percent of the Democrats surveyed expressed the opinion that Obama should be challenged for the 2012 Democratic Presidential nomination. In the wake of the mid-term election massacre, I expect that more Democrats will be anxious to find a new standard-bearer for their party in 2012. The AP article concerning the AP-KN poll, mentioned the theory that the public’s opinion of Obama could change if the economy improves. Unfortunately, most American consumers will not observe any significant improvement in the economy during the next two years. There is a greater likelihood that the Chicago Cubs will win next year’s World Series.

We currently find ourselves bombarded with a wide spectrum of opinions, which purport to explain what the results of the 2010 elections really mean. The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from this event is that the voters resent being taken for chumps. Obama’s supporters were promised change they could believe in by a President and a party that sold its soul to the Wall Street megabanks at the cost of America’s future economic health. When he had the opportunity to do so in early 2009, Obama refused to put those too-big-to-fail, zombie banks through temporary receivership. As a result, we are now approaching a situation which – according to financial risk management expert Chris Whalen – will necessitate another round of bank bailouts. When President Obama had the opportunity and the public support (not to mention Democratic control over both houses of Congress) to enact an adequate stimulus program to save the economy from a decade(s) – long, Japanese-style recession, he refused to so. If an extra $600 billion had been added to the $787 billion in 2009 (as part of a better-thought-out, infrastructure-based stimulus program) we would be experiencing significant economic growth and a recovering job market right now. Australia keeps reminding us of this. (Oops! Australia just did it again!) Instead, America finds itself in a situation wherein the Fed is now appropriating that $600 billion toward another round of quantitative easing, which will serve no other purpose than to push investors into the stock market. According to economist Andy Xie, those stock investors will have an unpleasant experience when Chairman Bernanke’s latest asset bubble pops in 2012.

While many Senate Democrats (along with operatives from the Treasury Department) were busy removing all of the teeth from the financial reform bill, Maria Cantwell was fighting those efforts as one of the few advocates for the American taxpayers. Back on May 19, Arthur Delaney and Ryan Grim of The Huffington Postdescribed how Senator Cantwell stood up to the efforts of Harry Reid to use cloture to push the financial reform bill to a vote before any further amendments could have been added to strengthen the bill. Notice how “the usual suspects” – Reid, Chuck Schumer and “Countrywide Chris” Dodd tried to close in on Cantwell and force her capitulation to the will of the kleptocracy:

There were some unusually Johnsonian moments of wrangling on the floor during the nearly hour-long vote. Reid pressed his case hard on Snowe, the lone holdout vote present, with Bob Corker and Mitch McConnell at her side. After finding Brown, he put his arm around him and shook his head, then found Cantwell seated alone at the opposite end of the floor. He and New York’s Chuck Schumer encircled her, Reid leaning over her with his right arm on the back of her chair and Schumer leaning in with his left hand on her desk. Cantwell stared straight ahead, not looking at the men even as she spoke. Schumer called in Chris Dodd, who was unable to sway her. Feingold hadn’t stuck around. Cantwell, according to a spokesman, wanted a guarantee on an amendment that would fix a gaping hole in the derivatives section of the bill, which requires the trades to be cleared, but applies no penalty to trades that aren’t, making Blanche Lincoln’s reform package little better than a list of suggestions.

* * *

“I don’t think it’s a good idea to cut off good consumer amendments because of cloture,” said Cantwell on Tuesday night.

Senator Cantwell has proven herself worthy of our trust. Her nomination as the 2012 Democratic Presidential candidate will revive the excitement and voter enthusiasm witnessed during the 2008 campaign. On the other hand, if President Obama decides to seek a second term and wins the nomination, we will likely find a greater enthusiasm gap than the example of November 2. As a result, by January of 2013 we could have a new administration in the White House, espousing what economist Nouriel Roubini describes as “the economic equivalent of creationism”.

I’ve been reading quite a number of articles written in anticipation of a revolutionary uprising by outraged citizens in response to the fallout from Wall Street’s giant Ponzi scheme. The writers of these items are talking about a more significant uprising than anything we have seen from the Tea Party demonstrators. Some are expecting riots in the streets. Since widespread civil unrest has recently taken place in Europe, much attention has been focused on the issue of whether anything like that could happen in the United States. From my own perspective, I just don’t see it happening. Nevertheless, I can’t understand what keeps the American public from getting really mad at this point. It could be due to an epidemic of Attention Deficit Disorder or excessive preoccupation with other distractions. Perhaps some sort of far-flung conspiratorial effort is under way, involving mass hypnosis via television or drugged drinking water.

On the other hand, I do agree with those commentators on the point that the predicted insurgent reactions are entirely foreseeable. Are they likely? Consider what these pundits have said and decide for yourself . . .

One of my favorite commentators, Paul Farrell of MarketWatch, discussed an inevitable backlash against the super-rich, who are waging class warfare by victimizing those of us down the food chain. Nevertheless, he doesn’t really make it clear how this revolution will manifest itself. Will there be actual physical violence . . . or just a “bloodbath” in the stock market? Here is how he described it:

Yes, it’s called the Doomsday Capitalism revolution. And I’m betting you’ll be able to track it on Twitter.

* * *

This new preemptive war is already in progress, and America’s billionaires are the aggressors: Buffett’s billionaire buddies on the Forbes lists, his Wall Street banker buddies, his exporter buddies in China, all of Buffett’s buddies in this “rich class” are already engaged in a hostile takeover war against the American middle class, against the working class and the poor, against all Americans not on the Forbes lists of billionaires.

* * *

Here’s how I imagine this revolution unfolding as a series of rapid-fire tweets, as citizen-warriors pass along this collection of earlier warnings to reenergize and drive the rest of America to rebel against Buffett’s “rich class,” tweets that will trigger an anti-capitalist revolution.

Warning to all investors: Prepare now, play defense. Expect an economic upheaval rivaling the 1929 crash, creating a climate for true reform that will make the 1930s look like a real tea party.

In a very real sense, Bernanke is throwing Granny and Grandpa down the stairs – on purpose. He is literally threatening those at the lower end of the economic strata, along with all who are retired, with starvation and death, and in a just nation where the rule of law controlled instead of being abused by the kleptocrats he would be facing charges of Seditious Conspiracy, as his policies will inevitably lead to the destruction of our republic.

Stephen Gandel analyzed the potential for civil war as a consequence of more quantitative easing with this logic:

Lower rates do tend to favor borrowers over savers. And the largest borrowers in the country are banks, speculators and large corporations. The largest spenders in our country though tend to be individuals. Consumer spending makes up 70% of the economy. And the vast majority of consumers are on the low-end of the income scale. So I think it is a valid question to ask whether the Fed’s desire to drive down interest rates at all costs policy is working. Companies are already borrowing at low rates. They are just not spending. . . .

That being said, civil war, probably not. “It is a gross exaggeration,” says Allan Meltzer, who is a top Fed historian at Carnegie Mellon. “I cannot recall ever learning about riots or civil war even when the Fed made other mistakes.”

Meanwhile, the prognostications of a gentleman named Gerald Celente appear to be gaining a good deal of traction. Here are some of Celente’s thoughts as they appeared in his own Trend Alert newsletter, back in April of 2009:

“Nothing short of total repudiation of our entrenched systems can rescue America,” said Celente. “We are under the control of a two-headed, one party political system. Wall Street controls our financial lives; the media manipulates our minds. These systems cannot be changed from within. There is no alternative. Without a revolution, these institutions will bankrupt the country, keep fighting failed wars, start new ones, and hold us in perpetual intellectual subjugation.”

* * *

“I am calling for an ‘Intellectual Revolution’. I ask American citizens to free their minds from the tyranny of ‘Dumb Think.’ This is a revolution about thinking – not manning the barricades. It’s about brain power – not brute force.”

It would seem that some degree of anger would be required to incite an “Intellectual Revolution” — even one without any acts of insurrection. At this point, it just doesn’t appear as though the American taxpayers are really there yet – Tea Party or not. People who “want their country back” aren’t the people who will lead this charge. Watch out for the people who want their jobs, homes and money back. They will be the ones with the requisite anger to seek real change – as opposed to the “change you can believe in”.

About TheCenterLane.com

TheCenterLane.com offers opinion, news and commentary on politics, the economy, finance and other random events that either find their way into the news or are ignored by the news reporting business. As the name suggests, our focus will be on what seems to be happening in The Center Lane of American politics and what the view from the Center reveals about the events in the left and right lanes. Your Host, John T. Burke, Jr., earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Boston College with a double major in Speech Communications and Philosophy. He earned his law degree (Juris Doctor) from the Illinois Institute of Technology / Chicago-Kent College of Law.